DOCSLIB.ORG

Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan. Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan. By Chaim Sunitsky. Rashi on this Parsha (Devarim 6:9) says that since the word Mezuzot is written without the Vav[1], only one Mezuzah is necessary. It’s generally assumed that Rashi can’t argue with a clear Talmudic statement that every door of the house needs a Mezuzah[2] and therefore he can’t be understood at face value. However the custom in many places in Medieval Europe had always been to only affix one Mezuzah per house[3]. We will now try to examine if indeed there ever was a tradition that supported this minhag. The Rema makes a unique statement in Yoreh Deah (287:2): “The commonly spread minhag in these countries is to attach only one Mezuzah per house and they have nothing to rely on”. This statement is very unusual. Rema is known for supporting Jewish minhagim and it’s very common for him to use the expression “common minhag” often followed by a statement that this minhag should not be changed, or at least that this minhag can be relied on. Here however the Rema is saying just the opposite: the minhag has nothing to rely on and a “yere Shamaim” person should affix the Mezuzot on every entrance. It’s hard to understand how this incorrect “minhag” could have possibly become wide spread. R. Yissachar Dov Eilenburg[4] (the author of Beer Sheva on the Talmud) suggested that this mistake became widespread due to incorrect understanding of ourRashi . However I find it strange if the previous minhag was to affix a Mezuzah on every doorpost, how would it change in many countries simply because they misunderstood the Rashi’s Torah commentary[5]. As for the correct understanding of Rashi, two possibilities were offered: either Rashi is saying that we don’t have to affix two Mezuzot on each doorframe[6], or that Rashi is following the opinion of R. Meir that if an entrance has only one doorpost on the right, there is a need to affix Mezuzah (despite the lack of second doorpost[7]). As for Rashi’s actual drasha[8] we don’t see it in any known source in Hazal[9]. In general there was[10] some attempt to explain the custom of affixing only one Mezuzah based on the fact that many of the inside rooms in their houses were not clean enough, but this does not explain what people relied on when the house itself had more than one entrance[11]. However Rashi[12] on our Gemorah brings an interpretation according to which if a house has exactly two entrances, it needs only one Mezuzah on the more commonly used entrance, since the other entrance is batela (is unimportant) compared to the first one. Only if the house has more than two entrances then we don’t say that two entrances are batelim to the one commonly used entrance. Maybe then Rashi on the Chumash is following his shita and saying that a house (or room) with two entrances requires only one Mezuzah. Interestingly, in Yerushalmi[13] there is even a stronger statement that seems to imply that only one entrance per house requires a Mezuzah: בית שיש לו שני פתחים נותן ברגיל היו שניהן רגילין נותן בחזית היו שניהן חזית נותן על איזה מהן שירצה The simple meaning of Yerushlami seems to contradict the Talmud Bavli and imply that only the entrance that’s used more often needs the Mezuzah. If he uses both entrances equally, then the Mezuzah is affixed to the “stronger” entrance and is they are equally strong, one can affix the Mezuzah on either entrance. To conclude we seem to have found a possible explanation of Rashi according to the simple meaning of his words[14] and a possible justification for the old minhag in Europe[15]. Needless to say our words are only theoretical and Baruch Hashem that minhag has disappeared a long time ago and every Orthodox Jew today affixes a Mezuzah on every entrance. [1] Apparently Rashi implies that Mezuzot is written without the second Vav and can be read as Mezuzat. Our scrolls written according the Mesorah, Rambam (Sefer Torah 2:6), Semag (Asin 22) and Minhat Shai have the first Vav between two Zain’s missing, but Leningrad scroll (used on Bar Ilan disk) in fact has the second Vav missing. It’s also possible that Rashi meant that as long as some Vav is missing we can “transfer” the missing Vav to the last position and thus read the word as Mezuzat. See also Minhat Shai, Shemot 12:7. Interestingly the famous statement of the GR”A that there are 64 different Tefilins one would need to put on to fulfil all opinions does not consider the various opinions about how to write various words like “mezuzot”, “totafot”, which would bring the numbers of different Tefillins to hundreds. [2] See for instance Menachot 34a. [3] In this article we only discuss if there is any justification for the custom of affixing one Mezuzah on one’s home. See however Semag (Asin 3) that there were some people in Spain who did not affix Mezuzot at all, and see there in Asin 23 some weird “justification” they used for their “minhag”. [4] In his super-commentary on Rashi called Tzeda Lederch and his “Beer Maim Chaim” usually printed in the end of Beer Sheva. [5] To say nothing about the fact that Halacha is rarely learned from a Torah commentary as Rashi does not “pasken” there. [6] In Yalkut Shimoni on Mishley (remez 943) indeed there is an opinion that each of the doorposts requires two Mezuzot, but our Gemorah (Menachot 34a) does not hold like this opinion and does not even mention it (see also Shu”t Minchat Yitzchak 1:9). [7] Obviously the Biblical word Mezuzah means not the parchment but the pole itself, so one Mezuzah in Rashi means one doorframe. [8] Which Rabeinu Bahya quotes as words of Razal. [9] See however Mordachai (962) who brings in the name of Rif that R. Meir and Rabonan who argue about the above law apparently learn from the spelling of Mezuzot. It may be according to this girsa, not found in our Rif, R. Meir had no Vav and Rabonan had a Vav in the word “Mezuzot” in Devarim 6:9. The Talmud mentions that R. Meir was a scribe and it’s possible he had some especially accurate scrolls that were different from the more commonly used ones (his “Torah scroll” is mentioned in Midrashim, see for instance Bereshit Rabbah 94:9). Our Gemora however only mentions the learning from “Mezuzot” with the Vav to support the shita of Rabonan (see also the first Tosafot on 34a). [10] See Maharil, Minhagim, Laws of Mezuzah, 1 and Tshuvot 94 . In practice the Maharil and Rema did not accept these explanations. [11] See also Shu”t Divrey Yatziv Yore Deah 191 who proposes that maybe only the Mezuzah on the outside doorpost is a Biblical command, but the question of a house with two entrances still remains. [12] Menachot 33a starting with words Holech Achar Haragil and 34a starting with words Af Al Gav Deragil Beechad. [13] The end of Megila, 34a (see however second perek of Tractate Mezuzah, in Vilna Shas it’s printed at the end of the volume with Avoda Zara). Even if our interpretation off the Yerushalmi is correct, if the house has many rooms, it would seem to need a Mezuzah for each one even according to Yerushalmi. [14] In Sefer Zechor Leavraham on Rashi in Likutim in the back the author also interprets Rashi to mean only one Mezuza is needed. He proposes that Rashi quotes a lost Midrash similar to the one preserved in Yalkut Shimoni I quoted above. According to the author the dispute there is not whether the Mezuzah is placed on both sides of one entrance but whether there is a need for a Mezuzah on every entrance of the house. [15] It’s known that many European communities started in Italy, where Yerushalmi was often followed to a greater extent than Bavli and therefore it’s possible that the earliest settlers in France and Germany were told only to affix one Mezuzah on the main entrance leading to the street. Regarding inside rooms, maybe they did not have any since simple houses had only one room in those times or maybe they relied on some of the weak reasons mentioned in Maharil (who rejects them) but regarding the outside doors if there are only two they may have followed Rashi and if some of their houses had more than two entrances they may have followed Yerushalmi or some other lost opinion (partially preserved in the Yalkut Shimoni). The Seven Nations of Canaan THE SEVEN NATIONS OF CANAAN[1] By Reuven Kimelman This study deals with the war and the seven Canaanite nations.[2] It complements my previous post on Amalek of March 13, 2014, “The Ethics of the Case of Amalek: An Alternative Reading of the Biblical Data and the Jewish Tradition. “The popular conception in both cases is that the Bible demands their extermination thereby providing a precedent for genocide.[3] The popular reading of the Canaanites filters it through the prism of Deuteronomy. The popular reading of Amalek filters the Torah material through the prism of Saul’s battle against Amalek in the Book of Samuel. In actuality, the biblical data is much more ambiguous making the most destructive comments the exception not the rule as will be evident from a systematic analysis of the Canaanite material in the Bible as was previously done with Amalek.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Noach's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant Mimaamakim We Must
    בס"ד קול תורה Parashat Noach 5 Cheshvan 5781 October 23, 2020 Vol. 30 No. 6 Noach’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant “VeAsu Li Mikdash VeShachanti BeTocham,” “And make for me a Mikdash and I will dwell in them” (Shemot By Rabbi Yosef Adler 25:8). Shlomo HaMelech is puzzled as to how HaKadosh Parashat Noach begins with a detailed Baruch Hu can be contained in this world, let alone in a description of the crafting of the Teivah. Its length is to building. However, Chazal state that Hashem engaged be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its in the Middah of Tzimtzum, contraction. He contracts to height thirty cubits. The only other structure which the meet mankind. Similarly, Noah’s ark is designed as a Torah describes in such detail is the Mishkan and its meeting place between man and the divine. utensils. The Aron Kodesh was to be two and a half Nevertheless, it is man here who contracts to meet the cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a divine. half high. An additional comparison exists by the phrase Ideally, it is man who spreads out over the four MiBayit U’MiChutz, from inside and out., which corners of the world and does not limit himself to an describes how these instruments were covered; the Ark. Therefore, Noah’s ark has a door to let people in Teivah with pitch and the Aron Kodesh with gold. Even and out so that this small sample of humanity will soon the word VeChafarta, and you shall cover, is found in populate the entire world.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Numbers 202 1 Edition Dr
    Notes on Numbers 202 1 Edition Dr. Thomas L. Constable TITLE The title the Jews used in their Hebrew Old Testament for this book comes from the fifth word in the book in the Hebrew text, bemidbar: "in the wilderness." This is, of course, appropriate since the Israelites spent most of the time covered in the narrative of Numbers in the wilderness. The English title "Numbers" is a translation of the Greek title Arithmoi. The Septuagint translators chose this title because of the two censuses of the Israelites that Moses recorded at the beginning (chs. 1—4) and toward the end (ch. 26) of the book. These "numberings" of the people took place at the beginning and end of the wilderness wanderings and frame the contents of Numbers. DATE AND WRITER Moses wrote Numbers (cf. Num. 1:1; 33:2; Matt. 8:4; 19:7; Luke 24:44; John 1:45; et al.). He apparently wrote it late in his life, across the Jordan from the Promised Land, on the Plains of Moab.1 Moses evidently died close to 1406 B.C., since the Exodus happened about 1446 B.C. (1 Kings 6:1), the Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years (Num. 32:13), and he died shortly before they entered the Promised Land (Deut. 34:5). There are also a few passages that appear to have been added after Moses' time: 12:3; 21:14-15; and 32:34-42. However, it is impossible to say how much later. 1See the commentaries for fuller discussions of these subjects, e.g., Gordon J.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Conquests of Canaan
    ÅA Wars in the Middle East are almost an every day part of Eero Junkkaala:of Three Canaan Conquests our lives, and undeniably the history of war in this area is very long indeed. This study examines three such wars, all of which were directed against the Land of Canaan. Two campaigns were conducted by Egyptian Pharaohs and one by the Israelites. The question considered being Eero Junkkaala whether or not these wars really took place. This study gives one methodological viewpoint to answer this ques- tion. The author studies the archaeology of all the geo- Three Conquests of Canaan graphical sites mentioned in the lists of Thutmosis III and A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Shishak and compares them with the cities mentioned in Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence the Conquest stories in the Book of Joshua. Altogether 116 sites were studied, and the com- parison between the texts and the archaeological results offered a possibility of establishing whether the cities mentioned, in the sources in question, were inhabited, and, furthermore, might have been destroyed during the time of the Pharaohs and the biblical settlement pe- riod. Despite the nature of the two written sources being so very different it was possible to make a comparative study. This study gives a fresh view on the fierce discus- sion concerning the emergence of the Israelites. It also challenges both Egyptological and biblical studies to use the written texts and the archaeological material togeth- er so that they are not so separated from each other, as is often the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Rabbi Riskin Confronts Rav Soloveitchik in Makor Rishon: Jewish Israel Responds
    Rabbi Riskin Confronts Rav Soloveitchik in Makor Rishon: Jewish Israel Responds In May 2012 the Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon ran a seven-page feature article, penned by Chief Rabbi of Efrat Shlomo Riskin, in their "Shabbat HaGadol" supplement. The subject matter was whether or not Jewish-Christian theological dialogue is permissible. Rabbi Riskin, a maverick on interfaith issues, has on more than one occasion ventured out onto an extreme theological limb. This time around, Rabbi Riskin appears to have inverted the inherent intent of Rabbi Joseph Dov Ber Soloveitchik’s (J.B. Soloveitchik, "the Rav") major essay on the subject, "Confrontation". The treatise, which was formulated in 1964, is widely interpreted within Orthodox circles to be a halachic psak proscribing interfaith theological encounters. However Rabbi Riskin contends, in the Makor Rishon article, that the intention of the Rav's essay was to permit, rather than prohibit, such theological dialogue. Concurrently, Riskin opens his personal "postscript" to Soloveitchik's "Confrontation" by inferring that the timing and the history of the document limits its application, as it was written one and a half years before the ratification of Nostra Aetate, and in response to the Catholic-Jewish dialogue taking place at the time. Rabbi Riskin's premise is puzzling, because it is well documented in Rav Soloveitchik's personal letters, as well as noted in contemporary academic papers, that the Rav had already formulated his firm position on interfaith concerns as early as 1950 - many years before the Vatican ll initiative. In addition, “Confrontation” continued to guide the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) on interfaith developments well into the 1980's, long after Nostra Aetate.
    [Show full text]
  • OF 15Th 2003 Rabbinic and Lay Communal Authority.Pdf (934.2Kb)
    Rabbinic and Lay Communal Authority edited by Suzanne Last Stone Robert S. Hirt, Series Editor THE MICHAEL SCHARF PUBLICATION TRUST of the YESHIVA UNIVERSITY PRESs New York forum 15 r08 draft 7b balanced.iiii iii 31/12/2006 11:47:12 THE ORTHODOX FORUM The Orthodox Forum, initially convened by Dr. Norman Lamm, Chancellor of Yeshiva University, meets each year to consider major issues of concern to the Jewish community. Forum participants from throughout the world, including academicians in both Jewish and secular fields, rabbis,rashei yeshivah, Jewish educators, and Jewish communal professionals, gather in conference as a think tank to discuss and critique each other’s original papers, examining different aspects of a central theme. The purpose of the Forum is to create and disseminate a new and vibrant Torah literature addressing the critical issues facing Jewry today. The Orthodox Forum gratefully acknowledges the support of the Joseph J. and Bertha K. Green Memorial Fund at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary established by Morris L. Green, of blessed memory. The Orthodox Forum Series is a project of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Yeshiva University forum 15 r08 draft 7b balanced.iii ii 31/12/2006 11:47:12 Copyright © 2006 Yeshiva University Press Typeset by Jerusalem Typesetting, www.jerusalemtype.com * * * Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Orthodox Forum (15th : 2003 : New York, N.Y.) Rabbinic and lay communal authority / edited by Suzanne Last Stone. p. cm. – (Orthodox forum series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-88125-953-7 1. Rabbis – Office – Congresses.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Beginning the Conversation
    NOTES 1 Beginning the Conversation 1. Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1969). 2. John Micklethwait, “In God’s Name: A Special Report on Religion and Public Life,” The Economist, London November 3–9, 2007. 3. Mark Lila, “Earthly Powers,” NYT, April 2, 2006. 4. When we mention the clash of civilizations, we think of either the Spengler battle, or a more benign interplay between cultures in individual lives. For the Spengler battle, see Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). For a more benign interplay in individual lives, see Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1999). 5. Micklethwait, “In God’s Name.” 6. Robert Wuthnow, America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005). “Interview with Robert Wuthnow” Religion and Ethics Newsweekly April 26, 2002. Episode no. 534 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week534/ rwuthnow.html 7. Wuthnow, America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity, 291. 8. Eric Sharpe, “Dialogue,” in Mircea Eliade and Charles J. Adams, The Encyclopedia of Religion, first edition, volume 4 (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 345–8. 9. Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald and John Borelli, Interfaith Dialogue: A Catholic View (London: SPCK, 2006). 10. Lily Edelman, Face to Face: A Primer in Dialogue (Washington, DC: B’nai B’rith, Adult Jewish Education, 1967). 11. Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament (New York: Knopf, 1967), 5, 11. 12. Ibid., 375.
    [Show full text]
  • YOUNG ISRAEL of HOLLYWOOD-FT. LAUDERDALE Rabbi Yosef Weinstock, Senior Rabbi Rabbi Adam Frieberg, Assistant Rabbi Rabbi Edward Davis, Rabbi Emeritus Dr
    “ YOUNG ISRAEL OF HOLLYWOOD-FT. LAUDERDALE Rabbi Yosef Weinstock, Senior Rabbi Rabbi Adam Frieberg, Assistant Rabbi Rabbi Edward Davis, Rabbi Emeritus Dr. P.J. Goldberg, President 3291 Stirling Road, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 954-966-7877 email: [email protected] www.yih.org SHOFTIM 7 ELUL 5778 AUGUST 18, 2018 TORAH READING Deuteronomy 16:18 HAFTORAH Isaiah 51:12 Nach Yomi : Jeremiah 21 Daf Yomi : Menachos 8 SHABBAT TIMES Candle Lighting 7:15 & 7:37 p.m. Shabbat Ends 8:34 p.m. Bat Mitzvah of Shoshana Weinstock. Mazel Tov! Welcome to all newcomers, visitors and guests 2 OUR YIH FAMILY…. Mazel Tov: Shoshana Weinstock upon today’s celebration of her Bat Mitzvah. Mazel Tov to Friday Night Shoshana’s parents Rabbi Yosef & Rebecca Weinstock, grandparents Martin & 7:00pm Minchah/Maariv Main Sanctuary Marsha Schenker and Dr. Alan & Joan Weinstock, and the entire family. Shoshana will deliver a Dvar Torah at the conclusion of the 9:00 a.m. minyan in 7:00pm Sephardic Minchah/Maariv Library the Sanctuary, followed by Kiddush in the Social Hall. 7:15pm & Candle Lighting Rabbi Edward & Meira Davis and Fred & Lori Wittlin on the birth of their 7:37pm granddaughter, Penina Malka, to Gabi & Rena Wittlin. Marci Pachter on the recent marriage of her daughter Jordana to Dr. 7:45pm Minchah/Maariv Beit Midrash David Schmelzer and to David's parents Dr. Victor & Susan Schmelzer of Columbus, Ohio. Shabbat Morning Ari & Cheryl Pearl on their son Mikey’s engagement to Rachelli Goldberg, 7:00am Shacharit Minyan Main Sanctuary daughter of Rabbi Efrem & Yocheved Goldberg of Boca Raton.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2016~Kislev~Tevet 5777
    SERVICES SCHEDULE December 2016 Kislev-Tevet 5777 Thursday 1 December Rosh Chodesh Kislev Saturday 17 December Shabbat Vayishlach Service Leaders: Stuart Reuben and Paul Wilton Friday 2 December NB No Pot Luck Dinner Shammos: Terry Haffern Service Leaders: Steve Daniels Torah Reader: Stuart Reuben Shammos: Arthur Berman Torah Portion: Vayishlach Gen 32.4-36:43 (Plaut 217, Hertz 122) Board Rep: Olga Bernstein Haftarah Reader: Dan Cohen Drash: Haftarah Portion: Obadiah 1:1-1:21 (Herz 137) Board Rep: Sarah Livschitz Saturday 3 December Shabbat Toledot Drash: Gillian Merron (Chief Executive from the Board of Deputies, British Jews). Double Bar Mitzvah Noam and Ariel Lazarus Service Leaders: Noam and Ariel Lazarus with Terry Gelbart Friday 23 December Shammos: Chris and Jessamie Milton and Peter Pountney Service Leader: Elena Bloksberg, Jessamie Milton and Harvey Livschitz Torah Readers: Noam and Ariel Lazarus Shammos: Chris Milton Torah Portion: Toledot Genesis 25.19-28.9 (Plaut 173 and Hertz 93) Board Rep: Sally Natan Haftarah Portion: Malachi 1:1-2:7 (Plaut 341 and Hertz 102) Drash: Harvey Livschitz Board Rep: Alistair Kirk Drash: Noam and Ariel Lazarus Saturday 24 December Shabbat Va-Yeshev Service Leaders: Chris Shiller and Jaden Grauman Friday 9 December Pot luck dinner. Please bring vegetarian food, fish or a dessert to share. Shammos: Dan Cohen Service Leaders: B’nei Mishnah Class with Chris Milton. Torah Reader: Jaden Grauman and Adele Miller Hebrew School service. Torah Portion: Vayeshev Gen 37:1-40:23 (Plaut 244, Hertz 141) Shammos:
    [Show full text]
  • War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition
    War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition edited by Lawrence Schiffman and Joel B. Wolowelsky Robert S. Hirt, Series Editor THE MICHAEL SCHARF PUBLICATION TRUST of the YESHIVA UNIVERSITY PRESs New York OOFF 1166 WWarar aandnd PPeaceeace rr0909 ddraftraft 6 iiiiii iiiiii 229/01/20079/01/2007 111:40:591:40:59 THE ORTHODOX FORUM The Orthodox Forum, initially convened by Dr. Norman Lamm, Chancellor of Yeshiva University, meets each year to consider major issues of concern to the Jewish community. Forum participants from throughout the world, including academicians in both Jewish and secular fields, rabbis,rashei yeshivah, Jewish educators, and Jewish communal professionals, gather in conference as a think tank to discuss and critique each other’s original papers, examining different aspects of a central theme. The purpose of the Forum is to create and disseminate a new and vibrant Torah literature addressing the critical issues facing Jewry today. The Orthodox Forum gratefully acknowledges the support of the Joseph J. and Bertha K. Green Memorial Fund at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary established by Morris L. Green, of blessed memory. The Orthodox Forum Series is a project of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Yeshiva University OOFF 1166 WWarar aandnd PPeaceeace rr0909 ddraftraft 6 iiii iiii 229/01/20079/01/2007 111:40:591:40:59 Published by KTAV Publishing House, Inc. 930 Newark Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Tel. (201) 963-9524 Fax. (201) 963-0102 www.ktav.com [email protected] Copyright © 2007 Yeshiva University Press This book was typeset by Jerusalem Typesetting, www.jerusalemtype.com * * * Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Orthodox Forum (16th : 2004 : New York, NY) War and peace in the Jewish tradition / edited by Lawrence Schiffman, Joel B.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Friends, I Have Read Many Portions of the Manuscript, Judaism Reclaimed, by Rabbi Shmuel Phillips
    Dear Friends, I have read many portions of the manuscript, Judaism Reclaimed, by Rabbi Shmuel Phillips. The author presents a very thorough and sophisticated discussion of many controversial, philosophical, and theological topics related to the various weekly Torah portions. The material is impressive in its scope and depth and the sheer volume of both Torah and academic sources quoted. I found the discussions fascinating and a source of solid Torah hashkafah. The presentation is many times on a high academic level, yet lucid and easily undersood. I feel that this work can serve as an effective tool to counter the claims of both those that scoff at our mesorah and those that think they can present the mesorah in a distorted and false manner. Although I am not acquainted with Rabbi Phillips personally, he is highly praised by his mentor, HaRav Moshe Rabinowitz, Rosh Kollel of Ohel Esther in Shaarei Chesed, as a serious talmid cha- cham and yerei Shamayim. I commend the author for an important contribution to the strengthening of emunah and mesorah, sorely needed in this generation. May Hashem Yisborach grant him and his family life and health and the wherewithal to continue to benefit the community. Sincerely, With Torah blessings, Rabbi Zev Leff Table of Contents Acknowledgments . XVII CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION The Legitimacy of Philosophical Investigation. 1 CHAPTER 2 | BEREISHIT Eden and Its Implications for Humanity . .10 CHAPTER 3 | BEREISHIT The Relevance of Rambam in Modern ThoughtI. 18 CHAPTER 4 | BEREISHIT The Relevance of Rambam in Modern Thought II . .24 CHAPTER 5 | NOACH From Universal Mission to Chosen Nation .
    [Show full text]
  • Judges 202 1 Edition Dr
    Notes on Judges 202 1 Edition Dr. Thomas L. Constable TITLE The English title, "Judges," comes to us from the Latin translation (Vulgate), which the Greek translation (Septuagint) influenced. In all three languages, the title means "judges." This title is somewhat misleading, however, because most English-speaking people associate the modern concept of a "judge" with Israel's "judges." As we shall see, judges then were very different from judges now. The Hebrew title is also "Judges" (Shophetim). The book received its name from its principal characters, as the Book of Joshua did. The "judge" in Israel was not a new office during the period of history that this book records. Moses had ordered the people to appoint judges in every Israelite town to settle civil disputes (Deut. 16:18). In addition, there was to be a "chief justice" at the tabernacle who would, with the high priest, help settle cases too difficult for the local judges (Deut. 17:9). Evidently there were several judges at the tabernacle who served jointly as Israel's "Supreme Court" (Deut. 19:17). When Joshua died, God did not appoint a man to succeed him as the military and political leader of the entire nation of Israel. Instead, each tribe was to proceed to conquer and occupy its allotted territory. As the need arose, God raised up several different individuals who were "judges," in various parts of Israel at various times, to lead segments of the Israelites against local enemies. In the broadest sense, the Hebrew word shophet, translated "judge," means "bringer of justice." The word was used in ancient Carthage and Ugarit to describe civil magistrates.1 1Charles F.
    [Show full text]
  • LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of DIVINITY Research Paper
    LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY Research Paper: Comprehensive Overview of ancient Near Eastern texts related to the Book of Deuteronomy Submitted to Dr. William Price, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of OBST800 – B02_202130 Hermeneutics by Raleigh Bagley III July 03, 2021 1 Abstract The examination of the Bible has been transformed by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ archaeological findings in the ancient Near East that have proposed challenging new inquests to interpreters, making it presently improbable to analyze the Old Testament without taking such findings into consideration. Deuteronomy’s origin and purpose persist as two of the several challenging areas in biblical scholarship. In the past half-century, certain relationships have been observed in the outstanding features of Deuteronomy and ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties and pledges of loyalty, and efforts have been made to place the text of Deuteronomy in the historical context. Throughout the history of the ancient Near East, the use of different forms of vassal treaties in different historical periods and the treaty framework adopted by various other written forms are firm. One example profoundly similar in its framing to the treaty forms of the Hittite vassal treaties of the second millennium B.C.E and the Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties of the first millennium B.C.E. is the Hebrew Bible’s book of Deuteronomy. Understanding comparative methodologies will assist in shedding light on the often-complex associations of ancient Near Eastern parallels to the Scriptures. It is to this advance of this academic analysis that the prevailing debate is fundamentally orientated, recognizing the current difficulties to the traditional reconstructions of ancient Near Eastern parallels for most of the Israelite social and religious institutions and exercising this momentum to cross-examine these entrenched elements― that Deuteronomic history becomes of critical importance when the question of the revelation and inspiration of the holy Scriptures is raised.
    [Show full text]